Alex Harsanyi wrote on 03/02/2016 11:19 PM:
If it cannot be improved, perhaps a warning message should be printed
in the eval window...
I like this idea. Maybe add to the DrRacket REPL banner, the
debugging/instrumentation options that are enabled.
Welcome to DrRacket, version 6.4 [3m].
La
I see that there's a big difference in the effect of debugging mode for
this example in v6.3-v6.4 compared to earlier versions.
On my machine:
Racket DrRacket
with debugging
v6.2 ~2500 ms ~3800 ms
v6.4 ~2500 ms ~63000 ms
In both versions,
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:06:56 AM UTC+8, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 1. Don’t ever measure anything in drracket (version 6.4.1 or earlier).
Perhaps this explains why you could not reproduce the problem :-)
DrRacket is the tool most people use to write Racket programs, and I suspect a
l
Hello,
I'm trying to do something like a unit "mixin", but have gotten stuck.
Here's a sketch of what I'd like:
#lang racket
(define-signature x^ (a))
(define-signature y^ (b))
(define-signature z^ (c))
(define-signature f^ (f))
(define-unit u@
(import x^ y^ z^)
(export f^)
(define (f q
1. Don’t ever measure anything in drracket (version 6.4.1 or earlier).
2. Are you comparing two different installations of Racket like the OP does? Or
are you just saying something is slow sometimes?
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Alex Harsanyi wrote:
>
> I have the same problem with Rack
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Benjamin Greenman
> wrote:
>
> In exchange I promise a beer or other legal refreshment at the next
> Racket-Con :)
(Don’t promise 17-year olds what you can’t keep! )
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" g
I have the same problem with Racket 6.4 64Bit Windows (running on Windows 7):
> (time (total 10))
cpu time: 85520 real time: 88070 gc time: 204
BTW, my "Choose Language" dialog box (Ctrl+L) has the following selected:
* Debugging
* Populate "compiled directories"
* Preserve sta
Hello Racket Users,
I'm currently extending this library and writing a little essay on its
implementation. The essay would be much improved if I could report on
users-other-than-myself experience.
If you've used trivial and have any numbers or stories about convenience,
reduced LOC, or bugs found
'John Clements' via Racket Users cites Jens Axel Søgaard:
The root finder is the right tool.
Excellent. That makes a lot of sense. Given the setup, I think h = 0.0001 is
probably plenty small. It didn’t occur to me that I could differentiate
numerically, rather than analytically. Thanks!
If y
FWIW the LGPL is more restrictive than MIT. I license my Racket packages under
the LGPL mostly for consistency. But the practical benefit is that I can copy
Racket code into the package if I want to. I wouldn't be able to do that if I
were using MIT (because the MIT license would be promising ri
FWIW the LGPL is more restrictive than MIT. I license my Racket packages under
the LGPL mostly for consistency. But the practical benefit is that I can copy
Racket code into the package if I want to. I wouldn't be able to do that if I
were using MIT (because the MIT license would be promising ri
Ah! Of course. I never would have thought of that. Thank you.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more
Brendan,
You are correct, your program did error when you applied `Lam-body` to a
non-`Lam`. What happened is that, in the process of printing the error
message, it tried to print that non-`Lam` value, which called your
custom printer, and so on.
Does that make sense?
Vincent
On Wed, 02 Mar 20
Today I wrote and then fixed a bug that caused my program to enter an infinite
loop for reasons I don't understand.
The program is the output display formatting for a prototype relational lambda
calculus interpreter. First I took my two structs, Lam and App (using symbols
for variables), and im
LGPL
On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Leif Andersen wrote:
> So, if you're not actually shipping Racket with your framework, I
> don't think it really matters. And even if you are, as long as you
> make it possible to relink to my own copy of Racket, I think it's fine
> too (as Racket is under the GP
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>
> The root finder is the right tool.
>
> Add this below your program:
Excellent. That makes a lot of sense. Given the setup, I think h = 0.0001 is
probably plenty small. It didn’t occur to me that I could differentiate
numerically, r
Could it be that the OS X 10.8.5 has something to do with it?
Does anybody else have an 10.8 (Mountain Lion) installation?
/Jens Axel
2016-03-02 20:39 GMT+01:00 vkelmenson via Racket Users <
racket-users@googlegroups.com>:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-5, vkelm...@aol.com wrote
If your Racket install is good... You might have instrumentation-heavy
settings in DrRacket, and/or the compilation of your files is somehow
corrupted. Or maybe the cause is with your computer.
Try running your program from the command line, and after deleting your
"compiled" directories for
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-5, vkelm...@aol.com wrote:
> I recently downloaded Racket version 6.4. I have previously been using
> version 6.1. It is much slower than version 6.1. Several short functions run
> approx 20 times slower on 6.4 than 6.1. These were run at the same time
2016-03-02 19:26 GMT+01:00 vkelmenson via Racket Users <
racket-users@googlegroups.com>:
> Also: When I am typing in the interactions pane of 6.4 there is often a
> 1-2 second delay before my
> keystrokes show up.
>
>
It sounds as if something went wrong during the installation on Racket.
How did
Sounds good - I'll try and get a talk ready for our May 19 local meetup which
will give me time to incorporate feedback before the end of May, then I'll have
an additional three+ months of coding prior to Racketcon.
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Vincent St-Amour
> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Yo
In general, times reported in DrRacket are unreliable.
See:
https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/performance.html#%28part._.Dr.Racket-perf%29
Try the command line. Here's what I get on my machine:
$ ~/racket61/bin/racket
Welcome to Racket v6.1.
-> (define (total n)
(for/sum ([x (in-range (+
It sounds like your files are not compiled. Try
raco setup
in a shell. You may need to supply some command line flags if your files are
half way compiled.
(Your examples runs in 3200 ms on my Mac in Racket 6.4.1)
On Mar 2, 2016, at 1:26 PM, vkelmenson via Racket Users
wrote:
> On Tue
The root finder is the right tool.
Add this below your program:
(require math/flonum)
(define (df/dx x)
(define f badness)
(define h 0.0001)
(define d (/ (- (f (+ x h)) (f (- x h)))
(* 2.0 h)))
(if (zero? d)
+inf.0
d))
(plot (list (function df/dx)
Hi Brian,
You're way in advance. :) I'm planning to send out the call for
proposals later this month.
We don't usually have a hard deadline, but if you could send me your
proposal by the end of May, that would be great! Does that work for you?
Vincent
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:50:56 -0600,
Bria
(with-output-to-string #; "marco.txt" (lambda () (printf " ")))
(Replace 'string' with 'file' and delete the comment char #;)
On Mar 2, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Marco Morazan wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I seem to recall I knew how to do this once, but can't recall the details.
>
> How do we write a bl
Marco Morazan wrote on 03/02/2016 01:12 PM:
How do we write a blank to a text file without the parallel bars appearing?
So, (write '| | outfile) produces | | in the file. I want to eliminate the
vertical bars.
That quote and vertical bars are creating an unusual symbol. Do you
instead want
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-5, vkelm...@aol.com wrote:
> I recently downloaded Racket version 6.4. I have previously been using
> version 6.1. It is much slower than version 6.1. Several short functions run
> approx 20 times slower on 6.4 than 6.1. These were run at the same time
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 1:15:30 PM UTC-5, Stephen Chang wrote:
> Use display? or set read-accept-bar-quote to #f
Thanks! Works like a charm! :-)
Marco
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Marco Morazan wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I seem to recall I knew how to do this once, but can't
To clarify what Stephen wrote there a bit, you should probably want to
only use `display` here. To a first approximation, `write` is used for
writing out values that you can read back in with `read`. (This
doesn't work in general and you actually want to make things
marshlable if that is your goal,
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-5, vkelm...@aol.com wrote:
> I recently downloaded Racket version 6.4. I have previously been using
> version 6.1. It is much slower than version 6.1. Several short functions run
> approx 20 times slower on 6.4 than 6.1. These were run at the same time
Use display? or set read-accept-bar-quote to #f
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Marco Morazan wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I seem to recall I knew how to do this once, but can't recall the details.
>
> How do we write a blank to a text file without the parallel bars appearing?
>
> So, (write '| | outfi
Hi All,
I seem to recall I knew how to do this once, but can't recall the details.
How do we write a blank to a text file without the parallel bars appearing?
So, (write '| | outfile) produces | | in the file. I want to eliminate the
vertical bars.
Thanks,
Marco
--
You received this messag
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 8:15:41 PM UTC-5, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> OK, I've moved 23 of my Racket packages from PLaneT to the new package
> system, and I plan to move several more. Exactly what's been moved, and
> is planned to move, is tracked at "http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/";.
>
This is very premature, but out of curiosity, when is the deadline for
submitting talk proposals for Racketcon? I'd like to use the date as a
motivational tool to help me make enough progress on the web framework to be
talk-worthy!
Thanks,
Brian
--
You received this message because you are su
I’m trying to minimize a function. It’s a continuous function made up of
piecewise well-behaved functions of the form (k_0 / x) +( k_1 / x^2). It’s not
hard to solve these analytically, but since they’re piecewise functions each
with different coefficients, I figured I’d ask first: does the math
So, if you're not actually shipping Racket with your framework, I
don't think it really matters. And even if you are, as long as you
make it possible to relink to my own copy of Racket, I think it's fine
too (as Racket is under the GPL).
(At least, I hope it's fine, as I also have projects under t
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:17:55 AM UTC-5, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote on 03/01/2016 11:31 PM:
> > Are there any particular license issues that I should be aware of in this
> > regard?
>
> I don't know. Looks like core Racket is now LGPLv3, which is pretty
> flexible about
Hi Rodrigo,
Sorry for the late response.
On 2016-02-24 17:22:11 -0800, Rodrigo Setti wrote:
> Naturally macros from typed/racket cannot be used by untyped code, so I was
> experimenting with some organization options to isolate the macros in an
> untyped environment... I thought about using anoth
39 matches
Mail list logo
